Monday, August 27, 2012

Ufologists: Do NOT Do These Things!

Not too long ago, I wrote a Top 10-themed post here on one of the most ridiculous things in the field of Forteana. What is it? The absolute pile of crap that currently passes for paranormal-themed "reality" TV, that's what.

You know the shows: they're the ones full of people running around forests/old buildings/deserts with night-scope equipment saying in whispered tones: "Did you hear that?! Did you see that?!"

No, we didn't see it! No, we didn't hear it! And, no, WE DON'T CARE!

Well, with that said, I thought it was time I offered a few more insights into what I see as rampant, Fortean idiocy. And, this time, it's all UFO-based.

As someone who has written a number of books on UFOs, these are my personal Top 10 (in no particular order) ufological "things" that - in my view, and in the dickhead stakes - are hard to beat.

1. THE MYSTERIOUS MIDDLE INITIAL
Whether it's due to the nefarious actions of sinister ETs or just a lack of imagination, have you noticed how, when someone writes a book on UFOs, their name magically changes? Yes, amazingly, it's true: the first name becomes longer than normal and a mysterious middle initial appears on the cover! My middle name is David. So, if I want to be a real UFO investigator/author, instead of my name appearing on my books as "Nick Redfern," it should actually appear as "Nicholas D. Redfern." Right? No! Wrong! Or as we say back in England: "Fakk Orf!" It may come as a surprise to some researchers, but letting the world loudly know you are now Robert instead of Bob, or James instead of Jim, and that (shock! horror!) you even have a middle initial, will not advance your credibility when your book comes out. Ufologist: Don't do it!

2. THE LETTERS AFTER THE NAME
Ah, yes, one of my all-time favorites. Pray tell, please, how does having academic letters after your name aid in furthering our knowledge of Ufology? Simple: it doesn't. People use letters because they think they look flash and will impress those they feel need impressing. Er, excuse me, but does anyone really think that in a field where ET has - at various times - allegedly probed people's rear-ends, made pancakes for them, had sex with them, and devoured gallons of Strawberry Ice-Cream (maybe, all at the same time...), having letters after their names will somehow aid in getting the message across, or make people look at them with wide-eyed approval and wonder? Perhaps, astonishingly, some Ufologists actually do think it helps. But, I say: Ufologist: Don't do it!

3. THE UFOLOGICAL DRESS CODE
Quite possibly the one thing that is guaranteed to make me spit venom and my head spin all the way around while speaking in ancient and terrible tongues: the theory that black suit + crisp white shirt + red tie + plus shiny black shoes somehow makes the relevant researcher - and their attendant message - credible. Posing, peacock-like, on stage as if you are running for Numero Uno position in the White House achieves nothing. Suits are what you wear when you bury someone. Or when you marry someone. Or when you...well, that's about it. Nothing you wear will ever, EVER, improve your position as a Ufologist in the eyes of the bigger world outside. The only thing which can ever achieve that is the discovery and presentation of hard, physical evidence of the UFO phenomenon. And, if that happens, it matters not a bit if - like me - you like to wear t-shirts and jeans, or you get decked out like a posh waiter or someone who runs a funeral-home. Ufologist: Don't do it!

4. SAYING THE RIGHT THING TO THE (ALLEGEDLY) INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE
No, no, no, no, no!! I've seen it time and time again at UFO conferences. And, no doubt, I'll continue to see it time and time again. It's the ufological equivalent of letting the boss win a game of golf (which nobody should be doing either). Or, as it's also known: seeking out the people in Ufology who you think can best help you advance your career (conference organizers, magazine editors, the leading-lights in the big UFO groups), and saying what you think they will want to hear, and not saying what you really think. Have some dignity! Say what you think about George Adamski, the Men in Black, or Area 51. Not what this or that person thinks! Okay, claiming old George merely took photos of a few lampshades tossed into the air probably won't get you booked at the next Contactee-themed event. But, you have, at least, been honest to yourself. So, when it comes to kissing ass, Ufologist: Don't do it!

5. CREATING AN IMAGE OF: "DON'T TALK TO ME! I'M A FAMOUS UFOLOGIST!"
Ufologist: You're not some Hollywood star. Lighten the fuck up. And don't make like it's a big deal when someone - who has paid good money to see you lecture and buy your books - wants to hang out with you for a while and ask a question or several. I've seen it far more times than I care to remember at UFO conferences, and it's downright embarrassing: the yawning Ufologist with their eyes on their watch, and who can't even be bothered to spend 5 minutes chatting about this case or that case with someone who looks up to them. And why can't they be bothered? Because they want to be having lunch with all the other self-important ufological souls on the panel. They're the ones who, at the conferences, huddle together around a big table in the corner of the restaurant and pretend they - and they alone - are in possession of some big ufological secret that the rest of us are not worthy of knowing. Ufologist: Don't do it!

6. "THE TRUTH IS COMING"
If there's one thing that pisses me off about Ufology, it's the endless assertion (usually offered with endless assurances) that "the truth" behind the UFO phenomenon is "coming soon." Yep: amazing revelations courtesy of the Government, or the dreaded "THEM." People have been saying that since Kenneth Arnold was still being breast-fed! Well, maybe not. But you get my point. Many ufologists do, for some reason, feel it's important to try and make us all feel warm and cuddly by saying something like: "Don't worry. None of your decades of research will be in vain. I have heard from a high-ranking source - that I can never name - that the truth will begin to surface at 9.45 a week next Thursday. And that's AM. not P.M." Well, I don't need to feel warm and cuddly at all, thank-you very much. And if you cannot stand by - or utterly verify - your date and claim as to when "the truth" is coming, then keep your mouth shut until you can. Which, given "the Government's" track record on disclosure, is likely to be forever. You know what's coming by now: Ufologist: Don't do it!

7. IT'S E.T. FOREVER!
For reasons I have never been able to fathom, there seems to be an underlying rule in much of Ufology: "Thou shalt not changed, alter or modify thy views." I have never got that one. In the same way that, today, I don't watch the same TV shows, or read the same books, as I did when I was a little kid, why should I - or any of us in Ufology - be expected to hang on to old, out-moded and out-dated theories and beliefs in light of new ideas, themes and paradigms? I'll tell you why: because it's expected! It's expected because the old-school wants the old ways and the old beliefs to be upheld. But, all that happens is they become...well...old. It's almost like: she's the abduction researcher who thinks it's aliens. He's the guy who believes Roswell was time-travelers. She's the person who writes about UFOs being inter-dimensional. He tells us it's Venusians. Etc, etc. Blah, blah. I kind of think that some researchers believe a change of opinion = weakness and unsureness. What a load of crap! Demonstrating that you're specifically not caught up in a position of "it's this or nothing" and are willing to take on board other scenarios is a stance born of strength. Not being able to face the idea of changing your views shows one thing and one thing only: you are emotionally driven by a need to believe and you have a fear of the unknown and of new challenges. Ufologist: Don't do it!

8. NEVER TURNING OFF THE "I'M A UFOLOGIST" SWITCH
Can you imagine being interested in UFOs and never talking about anything else? I can't, and I hope that applies to you, too. But, it's hardly something unknown in Ufology. It doesn't hurt now and again - actually, as often as possible - to have a life away from everything bug-eyed and saucer-shaped. Whether it's down the pub, at a restaurant, at a conference, or anywhere, it is actually permissible to speak about other things, like football ("soccer" as the unenlightened call it), life, music, travel, the list goes on and on. But, when we're all in a social context, let's have a break now and then from never-ending discussion about how many bodies were found at Roswell, or whether the Grays like their mutilated cattle cooked rare or well-done. Droning on about UFOs all night will (a) demonstrate your lack of a life; (b) fail to get you laid; and (c) quite possibly see you on the receiving end of a powerful punch on the jaw from someone who cannot take another 3-hours of waffle about memory-metal found in the New Mexico desert 60-something years ago. When it comes to being stuck like an old and scratchy vinyl album, Ufologist: Don't do it!

9. BIGFOOT!
As someone who has done far more cryptozoological research than UFO research, I often like to bring up the fact that someone has seen Bigfoot race across the road at the same place - and in the same precise time-frame - that someone else saw a UFO land in the woods. One of the reasons I like to bring it up is because it makes many a Ufologist and Cryptozoologist cringe. The reason: it suggests their carefully constructed beliefs might need to be revised. And, neither of these two "ologies" want that! But, why? What's wrong with pointing out that there are a significant number of cases on record where one Fortean puzzle most certainly crosses paths with another? Answer: there's nothing wrong with it! For those fearful of what their peers might think, however, it is a problem. So, they stay weak and silent. I say: Ufologist: Don't do it!

10. UFOLOGICAL WORRIES
For all their desires to spread the ufological word at conferences, on TV, on radio, and on the Net, I have seen more than a few Ufologists squirm and go bright red when they are forced to answer to people outside of their field the question of: "So, what do you do?" Again, this is due to lack of self-worth, lack of character, lack of self-belief, etc. Of course people are going to laugh a bit (maybe a lot!) when you say "I look for aliens." But, instead of avoiding discussion, say it loud and proud. If you think the best thing to say about your beliefs is to say nothing at all, I can only add those four words one more time: Ufologist, don't do it!

36 comments:

Some very observant points! I sometimes find the study of ufologists more interesting than the study of UFOs. Another thing many of them do that I've always found surprising is show a complete lack of interest in subjects that are ostensibly very closely allied to ufology, but without the extraterrestrial element. For example, very few nuts-and-bolts UFO believers are experts in subjects like aerodynamics and rocket science, which arguably they ought to be in order to have any credibility. And the ancient alien theorists would be hard pushed to tell you the difference between the neo-Assyrian empire and the neo-Babylonian empire!

"...very few nuts-and-bolts UFO believers are experts in subjects like aerodynamics and rocket science, which arguably they ought to be in order to have any credibility." Not true. But it is an aspect of the field. But if we stood by what you say, then every single person allegedly studying alleged UFOs must be an expert in aerodynamics and rocket science, and that is stupid. There's more to 'UFOs' than these two things. They're not simply an engineering problem; though, if you wanted to make one or understand how they work, then, yes, engineers become important. And you hint at this when you imply UFOlogists need to know the difference between the neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian empires. But there again, you said 'believers', and that's a bigger problem because believers don't want evidence - they just want to believe. So, despite the engineering issues associated with 'UFOs', there are many others.

>"It may come as a surprise to some researchers, but letting the world loudly know you are now Robert instead of Bob, or James instead of Jim, and that (shock! horror!) you even have a middle initial, will not advance your credibility when your book comes out. But it will make you a pompous arsehole. Ufologist: Don't do it!"

I shall inform Mr. Micah A Hanks :P

Though in his case, I think the adding of his middle initial was suggested by his publisher...

I'm guilty of the "name change" on my book as well. It was suggested I do so by............my wife. That argument was friggin' lost before it was even started. I just said, "Yes Dear" and then on with it...

I admit that I have stayed away from the UFO field simply because it's nearly impossible to prove and the general sci-fi nerd/conspiracy people are unnerving and intense. Bigfooters scare me too when they run around with guns, but they are chasing after something biologic and potentially discover-able (just made that up). I spend a good deal of my time in the ghostly realm but I don't believe I'm talking to dead people. It's all degrees of weird-ness in search of answers, but for some it's a belief system and a religion, for others, it's wonder at science. Fantastic post. You have your head on right.

I dont know of any bigfooters who run around with guns and I've been in this for a loooooong time Autumn. I don't know of any Cryptozoologists who run around with guns, except maybe a few I can count on one hand. Not sure where that idea came from. Ive never carried a gun into the woods, except during hunting season. Good post Nick! Right on spot!

If someone wants to wear a suit and look professional on tv, I don't see anything wrong with that. Likewise for those who want to wear a decade-old Motorhead tour t-shirt covered in gravy stains. But don't dress like a hipster, that's wrong on many levels.

As for the ETH (I include interdimensional, and I'm assuming you do too) -- you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, Nick. The ETH is a very valid possibility. If some people prefer it over other theories, so what? Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I agree, it's important to consider alternatives -- but to dismiss the ETH entirely, that's hypocritical, you're doing exactly what you accuse ETHers of doing with Keel, Vallee, Bigfoot, Argentinian gnome thought-forms, etc.

There's another negative flipside to #7 -- keeping up with the Joneses. I'm seeing this happening now, people going with a new theory/group because everyone else is, it's popular. The ETH is still valid, so if it ain't broke, why throw it out? Imagine if CERN scientists said a few years, "it's been 50 years and we still haven't found the Higgs Boson, so let's throw this theory out, it's dead"? We don't know what's around the corner, we could be on the verge of something big -- or we could still be decades away from it, who knows. Embrace the ETH, Nick, give it a hug, you know you still love it.

Live and let live, I say, don't be so judgemental and divisive -- we get enough of that from the skeptics. We should be looking out for each other. It's a big universe, room for everyone.

I never said we should throw out the ETH. Take a look at my specific words in that section. What I'm actually saying (and commenting on) is that I dont understand why, very often, certain people in Ufology think it's wrong to change their views, or that it will affect their credibility. I pointed out that there's nothing wrong with changing views (it shows you are open to other possibilities, which is good). I have never entirely ruled out the ETH possibility (though as most know, I do consider it very, very unlikely). As you'll see from my words, I DO consider the ETH out-dated and out-moded, but nowhere do I say I fully "dismiss" it (your word).

"Out-dated" is the same thing, Nick -- it's had it's day, throw it out, move on. That's dismissal. And as you admit, you're biased against the ETH from the get-go, which doesn't make you a partial judge at all. Kettle calling the pot, if you ask me.

Hermit:Out-dated? Yes. It's had its day? In my view, definitely yes. But, NO, that's no outright dismissal. We can only dismiss something if we have proof it isn't valid/real. I can't do that. But I DO think that the ETH is far less likely than other theories. So, I prefer to focus on other theories, rather than the one that has focused the attention of so many since 1947 - but without confirmation/validation of that theory. Will we ever be able to resolve which theory is correct? Maybe not. But that doesn't stop me searching, and I think that if the search does find the answer, it wont be ET. Kettles and pots arent even relevant. I think the ET is way outdated. But I admittedly cannot 100 percent deny it. Anymore than an ETHer can honestly deny the interdeminsional theory etc etc.

Part 1: I have this much to say on the ETH theory, based on the argument between Nick and Hermit.

On the one hand, I fully agree with Nick and other researchers on the topic through the years, e.g., Keel, Vallee, etc, that the evidence does not in any way suggest that the UFO phenomenon is, by and large, the product of visitation by advanced extraterrestrial civilizations originating elsewhere in the physical universe. The phenomenon goes back too far in human history, and draws too many notable parallels with the fairy-faith in its numerous cultural variations, and overlap with too many other aspects of the paranormal (e.g., weird creature sightings, poltergeist activity, magical summonings, psychic abilities). I used to be a firm adherent of the ETH hypothesis, and tried my hardest to dismiss the books written by Vallee which I read back in the day, but eventually I had to face where the evidence led. The popularity of E.T.'s in science fiction and the resulting cultural expectation towards the First Contact event have made the ETH theory to explain the UFO phenomenon all too attractive from an emotional standpoint, and within an easily comprehensible framework for someone living between the mid-20th century to the present.

Part 2: Now, on the other hand, I think it's silly for certain researchers on the topic - I am pointing out Keel and Vallee here in particular, despite being a big fan of their writings and proponent of their basic theories - to try and validate the IH (interdimensional hypothesis) by claiming it's highly unlikely that extraterrestrial life exists anywhere, or that if it is, then it's all but impossible that a truly advanced civilization could circumvent the distance and time dilation difficulties in traveling through deep space. Mainstream scientific studies in no way suggest that life is unlikely to exist anywhere else in the universe. Acknowledging this in no way suggests that I'm suddenly supporting the ETH as the source for most of the UFO phenomenon. The available evidence simply does not point in that direction, and there are many good, logical reasons to believe that any advanced extraterrestrial race that could locate and travel to this planet could easily survey our world without flashing lights all over the place, landing and making repairs of their highly advanced craft directly in view of witnesses, or abducting humans and making crude medical examinations that are clearly more designed to elicit emotional reactions than uncover any actual biological data.

Further, arguing that no intelligent E.T. species could possibly have a humanoid form because they could only look like "nothing we can possibly imagine" simply because, well, they're not from Earth, is also rather silly and betrays a lack of biological and evolutionary knowledge: The form they took would depend on the conditions of their planet. Human beings developed the basic humanoid phenotype and bipedal stance because it specifically worked under our planetary conditions to enable us to use and create tools properly. Throughout the many climate environments on Earth, all higher organisms (above insects and arachnids, etc.) have developed four limbs (never more than that), two eyes (never more than that), a mouth located under the nose and eyes (never above either), etc. Why? It's because this basic phenotypical structure *works*, and nature tends to go with what works over any type of biological flight of fancy simply because it can. Any other planet in our universe with even roughly Earth-like conditions would follow the same physical laws that govern our planet, and would not be akin to other dimensions of reality (when we're talking about that, then it's possibly a whole different story).

So, in summation, almost all the available evidence of the UFO phenomenon does not support the ETH; rather, it seems to suggest that the phenomenon of mysterious aerial craft and their bizarre occupants are somehow intertwined with the full array of paranormal activity that researchers of all aspects of Fortean phenomena routinely study, even if cryptozoologists and ufologists who adhere to certain beliefs prefer to downplay or ignore this.

But on the other hand, much of what some of the groundbreaking researchers on the UFO puzzle say about the "impossibility" of extraterrestrial life, or the "impossibility" of any of it having the basic humanoid phenotype, or on the "impossibility" of any sufficiently advanced civilization developing the technological means of interstellar travel, are unnecessarily making unscientific statements to bolster the IH, when the available evidence alone is more than sufficient to do this.

godofthunder85 is correct: "...the evidence does not in any way suggest that the UFO phenomenon is, by and large, the product of visitation by advanced extraterrestrial civilizations originating elsewhere in the physical universe." Yet, as Autumn Forest suggested, there's still weirdness going on. Things flying in the sky, or landing of roof-tops. But do we all need a degree in aerospace engineering to fully understand it? Yet non-scientists are the biggest problem for UFOlogy, but are the biggest contributor of eyewitness accounts and odd experiences. As a 'scientist', I commiserate with Nick.

Nick, you do realise by saying what you've said, you'll now get loads of Ufologists claiming you were told to do so by aliens as an act of disinformation!! You can't fool us Nick, ha!

I think ghost hunter's are pretty similar as are a majority of 'big cat' researchers in the UK.

Why do people change their names for their books though ? That's bizarre. I might go under the name Neil M.I.B. Arnold for my next though. Also, do you realise that Neil A backwards reads; Alien. It's all a conspiracy I tell ya...

Instead of changing their names for their books, UFO authors should alter their writing methods. UFO authors are not writing for a mass audience of unaware readers who are looking to be educated about the history of UFO sightings, they're preaching to the faithful. There's no need to remind readers that Ken Arnold was "the first UFO witness" or that " some believe an alien spacecraft plummeted to Earth at Roswell." I think anyone who plunks down hard earned cash for a book on alien speculation is probably painfully aware of these banal little factoids.

This is the main reason I've stopped reading UFO books. The turgid slog through the first few chapters of rehashed UFO hash always makes me feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. Life's too short.

& I have to ask Nick, since you said this:

"I often like to bring up the fact that someone has seen Bigfoot race across the road at the same place - and in the same precise time-frame - that someone else saw a UFO land in the woods."

does the same statement apply to Bigfoot hoaxers? In other words, can we anticipate that a tin foil covered pseudo alien will be run down on the back roads of Montana in the near future?

It occurs to me you left out one major caveat I think you & I share when it comes to this field:

The childish compulsion UFOlogists have of filling the covers of their books with cheesy illustrations of aliens & flying saucers.

Yes, I know authors don't really have much opinion when it comes to the decisions their editors take when handling the layout and appearance of their books. But since this field is filled with self-publishing authors, I feel this is no longer a valid excuse.

I feel Richard Dolan's books are a good example of how a proper UFO book's art cover should be handled. I mean COME ON! Just because the book deals with UFOs doesn't necessarily mean you're obliged to paste a fugly saucer as the focal point of your cover.

In most cases the covers are chosen by the publisher, nothing to do with the authors at all. Ditto for interior photos and illustrations. Same for names and middle initials, that is most often the publisher's decision -- except for Micah A. Hanks, but I'm sure Nick won't be calling him a dickhead anytime soon.

Wow, the scorn and ridicule in this blog is so disappointing. No, don't argue you're just "poking fun" -- the bitterness and cynicism is plain to see, something we get enough of from skeptics. Take a long hard long at yourselves, folks, you're not the poster children of ufology either.

You criticize my views in this post. But, look what I actually have scorn for (things that in my view are entirely valid for scorn): those ufologists who wont give the time of day to hanging out with conference attendees, because they want to be with their elite little groups. That's pathetic, ego-driven and deserves to be criticized.

Anyone who kisses ass to get ahead and is not true to the themselves - in any field - deserves criticism and scorn.

Being embarrassed about admitting to strangers you are into UFOs is pathetic. People should be proud of it!

Yes, I DO find the middle initial thing on book-covers to be amusing. Thankfully, Micah has seen the light and removed the "A" from all future covers.

My post is NOT a dig at Ufology in general, the people in it, the subject or anything like that. It's simply a focus on 10 issues that I think are entirely valid ones for discussion and attack.

Without doubt, number 5 is the worst (in my view). I cannot tell you how many times I have seen this at UFO conferences, and it disgusts me.

If people have paid good money to see someone lecture on their book, then that author should spend time with his or her audience - and not just hastily scribble their signature in a book and say "I've got to go because us elites are having a super-secret meeting that you can't come to." Or, that's basically what they mean.

I could tell you some real horror stories of very famous people in Ufology who just cannot stand having to spend time with the audience. And yet, the people they look down on are the very ones buying their books and coming to see them speak! And Ive seen conference attendees upset and disillusioned by that arrogant ego angle of "Don't talk to me." That, for me, is the real scum angle of Ufology. And I make no apologies for showing bitterness towards the angle and those researchers who think they are above their audience.

We're all in this together, all looking for answers, and anyone who thinks they are some sort of elite IS a dickhead!

My friend Mike Clelland tells how he once during a conference he found Brad Steiger sitting all alone at the hotel bar. With a bit of timidity, Mike approached the table and said to Brad how much he admired him and his work, and asked him if he could talk with him for a little while; to which Brad replied with a smile and his Texan accent: "If you buy me a beer you can sit right here"

So yeah, this is a public kudos to Mr. Steiger, arguably the most prolific Fortean author around*, yet he can still find the time to converse with his fans --what's YOUR excuse, UFOlogists? ;)

(*) Though I do believe Nick is giving him a good run for the title :P

Good point RPJ. Although author's don't often get to design their covers it's important for a book to have decent artwork. Hell, that's the reason I bought so many heavy metal albums in the '80s! I enjoyed the covers of some of the 1950s UFO books but over time the covers have left me cold.

Yeah Nick on the "letters after the name" bit -- here's my take on that. I have used "M.A." after my name as a joke to piss people off. Now I know it's wrong but consider this -- I did a "self-designed" masters degree at the U of MN and the whole time I was doing activism exposing the corrupt corporate control of the University. So first I protested that the University had $1.5 million stocks in Total Oil using slave labor in Burma. Well they invested in other corporations in Burma but they divested the Total stock. Then I protested the University having their athletic clothing made in sweatshops where the young females are forced to get abortions if they want to keep their jobs, etc. Yes they finally joined the Workers Rights Consortium. Then I protested the University administration telling Monsanto: "For enough money well give you tomatoes as big a basketballs!" Then I exposed how a University program director Ph.D. instructor was promoting Werner von Braun as his star example of humanity and his personal mentor in the graduate school newsletter. I got an email from the President of the University with the patronizing comment that I had "done enough" already and please "don't go on unlimited hunger strike." The instructor who didn't like me pointing out Werner von Braun had supervised slave labor when he was a Nazi SS -- he emailed me with only the simple comment: "I will personally make sure you are never published in the MN Daily again." Anyway so that was my "masters degree" and they were glad to see me go. haha. So if someone is personally offended if I use M.A. after my name as if I'm trying to boast my credentials and so they think I'm brown-nosing or something -- I say the jokes on them for judging people based on superficial labels!! haha. In fact the pseudonym of my online free download book is Moose Dung, an Ojibwe name. haha.

It's like the joke I make about those new punk rockers that have to have that "perfect purple mowhawk" with those "perfect shiny black boots" and then they hang out in the malls. haha. Being punk is an attitude and hopefully it doesn't involve what the term means in jail cells. Nope I prefer Punk meaning rotten like detritus and humus and humanure making a beautiful nutritious vegetable garden.

Anyway Nick I'm wondering about your reference in Pyramids and the Pentagon citing the 1956 and 1959 CIA amanita muscaria experiments. See I've done amanita muscaria and it was awesome - once the nausea passes and also drinking the urine is a bit tough -- but the visions of Egyptian levitating stones and spacecraft? -- it's pretty wild.

So you said that was a FOIA request you did to the CIA? I tried finding stuff online -- I found the CIA MKultra mentions amanita muscaria in subproject 22 but I couldn't find any details online. I would think that if you have any FOIA records people would really want to see the documents online.

Have you ever thought of uploading your FOIA'd documents? I mean I don't know the easiest way -- I'm a luddite -- but even an image upload from a digital camera would be super easy. Or could you maybe give more details on the FOIA document or maybe you got it from some CIA public records that are online?

Hey Spiral:Yeah, posting the documents is no problem. I can just scan and upload them. It's worth noting, however, that as you may recall from Pyramids/Pentagon, even the CIA found the whole Muscaria/levitating stones thing as fanciful, and they viewed it very skeptically. Others, however, didn't. Which suggests - probably correctly - that there has been a lot of debate and divergence of opinion in Govt on such controversies. There definitely does not seem to have been a fully-unified concensus on the value of psychedelics in Intel Ops.

Wow that would be awesome! Yeah I look forward to seeing the docs. I thought your take on the whole "stargate conspiracy" was very well written -- concise yet fascinating. Still I think Prince and Picknett's book is at least a good hyperbolic antidote to the over-the-head "ancient aliens" meme going on. I mean specially with Greg's recent naming of the probable Aviary's Falcon as the CIA disinfo-agent Harry Rositzke. Oh I tweeted you about a MKultra victim of Ewen Cameron in Canada -- the victim said he had spoken to aliens from Sirius and Mars!! So another clue of possible stargate disinfo CIA mind control.

Yeah that was part of my pondering as I thought the CIA was using pscilocybin more -- I mean as you noted Amanita Muscaria was apparently discarded. Amanita Muscaria does have an MAOI which would increase a person's activation of the serotonin receptors for hallucinations or visions -- but its main effect is increasing acetylcholine and GABA. I forget the details but I researched it after I did it. haha. I mean it does induce a DMT-type dream experience that is called the "eternal loop" similar to the "rainbow vortex" of DMT. So it would appear to have a "gateway" or wormhole visionary effect. The best part though is the "beserker" surge of euphoric energy -- and there is a time delay in perception so there are actions before the prefrontal cortex consciously acknowledges what happened. So I did a 9 hour full lotus session on amanita muscaria and so I confirmed it activated the kundalini energy. My brain felt very lucid also and the amgydala is deactivated so there is no fear. This is why the Beserkers used it.

Oh I recommend Jan Irvin's documentary on amanita muscaria -- fascinating stuff with it's use in the medieval churches -- possible as the origin of Jesus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApTAW19RUDU Well it's kind of pedantic so maybe only if you've done amanita muscaria will you appreciate the stretching of logic in the doc. haha.

Hey Nick, this is a good overview of things that could definitely go away. If you manage to get ufologists to realize changing views isn't necessarily bad, can you move onto politicians next? Haha.

As to #6, I think it's way older than Mr Arnold's infant-era breakfast. Didn't similar ideas come from the 1897 Airship chaos? Not to mention centuries of religious stuff, which may or may not be connected (any thoughts on possible connections with #7?)

Nick. Awesome article. I was nice enough to share my story with a ufologist, who claimed he was writing "another" book to give "experiencers" a platform where they could be believed by a trusting person and tell their stories. After he insulted me in the initial draft of my story,and was called on it and corrected, he stated that he was merely considering what readers would question about my take on things. He never apologized. Now that the book is published, incorrectly of course, he has been on three radio talk shows. He has been implying that I'm some crazy, yet at the same time, using mainly the chapter on me to promote the book that will or will not make "him" more money. I emailed the host of one radio show already and gave him spelling and pronunciation corrections etc. I went from trusting this guy with my info, to being insulted on live broadcasts. My goal now, is to write my own book with my own correct info and leave him in the dust. I got a copyright on my own property and artwork before his book was published. He is playing with a movie producer who contributed an apparently "acceptable" abduction story and also with a couple of the "big boys" who are hard set to never accept any alternative point of view, which I have offered wholeheartedly, only to be labelled by this "ufologist" as a potential wingnut, so he can save face with the Jones's while still exploiting my chapter for his own gain. It's all about his success.

Hi!vRegarding Women in Black book.My experince was as follows, A lady came to my door(no not dressed in black! A dark gray skirt blouse claining tio be a Insurence adjuster(this was in the evenin) Told here I knew nothing about an insurnce claim she did get my name however She was carrying a Cream colored purse I swear Glowed a sickly green when I answered her questions! I do some UFO resarch and perhaps I gpt too close to something! Am freinds 40 years with great UFOLOGIST Dr. R .Leo Sprinkle PhD Maybe a connection there? Dr.Sprinkle will be 86 yo Aug 31st by the way Hopeig to start a "GLOBAL FULL UFO DAY" AUG 31ST To once and for all encouage the FuLL DISCLSURE OF UFO BY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SOURCES! HAPPY BIRTHDAY DR. SPRINKLE! Thanks,Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC>

Half of what you say is interesting, the rest, not so much. Take point seven (I think), about being open to changing ideas about UFO-related things. The basis of any field of study is its theoretical basis. However, this means theory that has stood the test of time; has been experimentally demonstrated to be true or, at least, logically sound. There are no such things in UFOlogy. UFOlogy does not have a theoretical basis of experimentally proven theories or even logical theories. And if you encourage people to 'change' only because a new and exciting if not fashionable theory comes along, which 'sounds' better than some older theories about UFO-related things, then that is useless because it does not provide UFOlogy with a solid theoretical foundation, merely more useless silly theories. So what if a lady in grey came to your door in the evening? Prove that she had anything to do with anything other insurance. If you cannot, you are wasting everyone's time sprouting a pet theory about what her 'true' motives were for coming to your door. In my humble opinion, there is no UFOlogy worth talking about because it does not have a theoretical basis for studying anything UFO-related because not a single theory has been experimentally proven 'true' or possess the requisite logicality required to support a true field of study.